Impact of GM Destroying the EV1 71 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
The documentary Who Killed the Electric Car comes to a number of conclusions. On the encouraging side, the EV1 proved an electric car could be reliable fun to drive, and very well liked (one might say loved) by its owners. The car was clean, performed admirably, and a tune-up consisted of rotating the tires and topping up the windshield fluid compartment..
On the disturbing side, the documentary points out the complete failure of government at both the state and federal level to support the car - not merely by financial incentives, but by policy. The California Air Resources Board [CARB], the same bureaucracy that initiated the zero-emission policy in the first place, abandoned the EV1 at the very point in time the car proved it could meet the board's requirements. Bush and Cheney then pulled the bait-n-switch to hydrogen fuel-cells, a technology they both know will never be cost-efficient. The EV1's were then recalled by GM (GM) (the cars could only be leased - no leasers were allowed to keep them), and they were sent to the car crusher so all evidence of its success could be destroyed forever.
What are the economic, environmental, and political repercussions due to the demise of the EV1? The repercussions are gigantic.
Economically, the US is even more addicted to foreign oil and sends $700 billion a year to Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Iran. The resulting trade deficit and economic reverberations have played a major role in the US dollar's 50% devaluation under the Bush administration. America's current economic stagnation due to its addiction to high-priced foreign oil is even harder to digest given the oil-induced inflationary environment its citizens are currently learning to live with. The economic implications of the resulting stock market sell-off will be felt by retirees, working people's 401k plans, and investors for years to come.
Meanwhile, some analyst are predicting bankruptcy for GM, who switched from making EV1's to Hummers. Meanwhile, thousands of GM employees and entire communities will feel the negative effects of GM's consistent reporting of billion dollar losses. It's interesting to note that GM, facing bankruptcy, losing market share to the hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles Toyota (TM) and Honda (HMC) developed because of the CARB mandate, and seeing its stock price sink to decade lows, still doesn't mention reviving the EV1.
Environmentally, the lack of an electric car in the US has been disastrous. Some have estimated the US would be using 50% less gasoline today if the California mandate and EV1 had been allowed to take its natural course. Considering that each gallon of gasoline burned in an automobile's internal combustion engine can emit 15 lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere, well, you do the math.
Politically, it's just one more nail in the coffin of the American "democratic" system of government. The US at this point is more fascist than democratic. The industrial powers call the all the shots. If the EV1 is any indication, these industrial powers (like GM) seem hell-bent on destroying even themselves. Recent Bush administration-supported efforts by Bernanke and Paulsen show the government is in the process of nationalizing the country's mortgage market and will soon do the same to the banking industry - including the investment banks. This will be yet another mechanism of federal control (along with the wars on terror and drugs) in order to take US taxpayer money and give it to the small number of well connected in power. US capitalism is on its last legs.
All this is very interesting to me because I interviewed with the GM engineering group during the mid 1980s in Kokomo, Indiana. They were looking to hire someone to work on the electric car project, and wanted to hire me to work on the braking system. The idea was to reverse the electric fields during braking thereby re-charging the batteries. Interesting job, but Kokomo seemed a strange place to me, and the GM environment even stranger. The real estate agent showing me around asked what kind of car I had, and when I replied that I had a Toyota truck he said, and I quote, "that might work in San Diego, but you had damn well better get rid of that truck before you move here!" He was right too. Not long after returning to San Diego, I saw on TV Toyota trucks getting smashed in the parking lot of the mall right there in, you guessed it, Kokomo, Indiana. What a different world we might live in today had those workers been focused on making quality EV1 automobiles rather than destroying Japanese imports.
Bottom line: Hydrogen fuel cell technology isn't gonna happen. It's a distraction to keep us from realizing that electric cars are possible and WORK. We should be focusing our transportation effort on electric and hybrid plug-in automobiles and electrified high speed rail systems. We should build out the electrical infrastructure to support new energy supplies to fuel these transportation systems from wind, solar, and nuclear energy sources. Just as important, the 50 states should band together and call for a constitutional convention to dismantle the current United States government. We should start over with just the US Constitution and Bill of Rights to guide us. We need to take back our country's government from the fascist powers who are at this very minute plotting to take total control of it. The same powers that killed the electric car.
To put this all into perspective: Seeking Alpha commenter 'lminsky' just pointed out, in a comment he posted to my article on T. Boone Pickens' approach, for all the money the US has wasted in Iraq, it could have instead bought 100,000,000 hybrid vehicles to replace US citizens' gas-guzzling SUVs. Obviously this would have not only been a much wiser use of US taxpayer money, but would have cut foreign oil dependency, helped to clean up the Earth's atmosphere, saved many lives, and perhaps have rescued the faltering US economy and currency from its current oil-dependent death spiral.
Disclosure: The author does NOT own GM, but still drives a Toyota truck and will stay long energy stocks until the US adopts a comprehensive long-term energy policy.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 71 comments:
Please check out the electrified high speed rail system just available from Aug. 01, 2008 in China.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It is about $10 to run 70 miles in 28 minutes. Can you image that the similar train can take you from Philadelphia to New York City in 35 minutes ? The Amtrak now costs you 77 minutes and $87.
Are we so behind in electrified high speed rail system, aren't we ?
Let's do the math..... gasoline is a molecule of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen......... weighs about 7??? pounds a gallon....... combustion products are H2O... C0.... CO2 and soot.......where does the "15 pounds of co2" come from???
Also quit harping on GM. They had/have to do something. With all of the legacy costs they have few options.
The mainstream press is overlooking the big picture. If these pure electric cars are coming, and I think they eventually are, when are we going to begin the massive expansion of our electric power infrastructure that will be needed to recharge these things? I can just hear the news reports that will be broadcasts a few years from now:
"Thousands of commuters were unable to get to work this morning after a massive power black out caused by high user demand swept through many parts of the nation. Hardest hit were the residents of Southern California as power grid officials struggled to meet the demands caused by the unrelenting heat wave and recent increased demands places on the grid by commuters needing to recharge their cars."
Additionally, we will probably hear people complaining about their high power bills, much the same way they currently complain about their high gasoline bills.
As far as the electrical supply, we have to think those anti nuclear folks. They and the don't drill in ANWR, don't drill offshore crowd might as well realize they are closet Al Qaeda supporters.
I am not suggesting we don't hold companies responsible for safety and avoiding pollution. I have no problem with even holding their executives liable to criminal penalties for pollution and safety issues.
Now if we could just hold those in congress liable for the lack of a policy to supply the energy this company needs.
miken: as the film points out, there was demand, and it was probably the first car ever made that was not sold to people who wanted to own them. and i dont buy the cost argument either - any car that is produced in small quantities would be expensive. the electric car is much much cheaper to build than hummers and SUV's. GM's strategy was to under market and under-cut demand because their ideology was dead set against the car. why do you think they destroyed them all and wouldn't let anyone keep (actually buy) and drive them?
jackh: the internal combustion engine not only runs on gasoline, but also on air. that is why there is an intake manifold on autos. gasoline is 6.3 lbs per gallon. here is an article that will explain the emission question:
www.fueleconomy.gov/Fe...
but this article says it produces 20 lbs of CO2/gallon of gasoline..so, i guess i underestimated...
Jacamar: exactly, it wasn't made for production - that's the problem. and that's one reason GM is on its knees. again, i disagree with the cost - much cheaper and simpler to build than hummers and SUVs. wrt charging, i mentioned in the article where the electricity should come from. wrt GM, someone needs to harp on them, apparently they arent able to figure out the oil impact on hummer sales, so i thought i would try to help them out. all these issues seem obvious to toyota and honda (although toyota started making huge trucks as well...at least the have the prius).
blah: the reason the team at GM responsible for marketing the EV1 went to "hollywood types" was because GM refused to market the car like their other cars (you know, beautiful blonde chicks driving to the beach with the windows down and their hair blowing) so, the team decided to reach out to high profile people (mel gibson, ted danson, tom hanks, etc.) so that america (who is fascinated with such people) would at least get some kind of exposure to the car. the mainstream press may be over looking the issue of electric infrastructure, but i didn't in the article, nor does my energy policy:
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
the death of the electric car, killed by GM and the oil companies, was probably the single biggest reason the US economy, currency, and stock market are in the tank today. our dependency on 70% imported (and high priced oil) is simply unsustainable. if people dont wake up, the government will continue to take more and more control over our lives until the US will be unrecognizable as the great country it once was.
Our governments -- unlike the Japanese, Korean, etc. -- do more to hurt industries than help. Most of the manufacturing jobs have gone overseas -- you'd think that someone would wake up here and try to help keep the ones that we have!!!
Meanwhile, Congress fiddles while Rome burns. As millions more Americans receive their pink slips, e-Democrats won't even ALLOW A VOTE on exploring the OCS and ANWR for more oil and gas. Fits their strategy of WRECKING OUR ECONOMY, so we vote for them to fix it.
If Americans are dumb enough to buy this nonsense, we'll deserve what we get. More of the same!
fictitious film "Who Killed the Electric Car?" a long succession of lies and half-truths, only sems to know about the EV-1. Why is that?
What deal did Chris Paine make with Honda and Toyota that led him to rewrite history and fail to point out that they killed their electric programs just like GM did and for the exact same reason? Why is
the American public so dumb about the problems with electric cars?
Well, folks, you all will have the opportunity to put your money where your mouth is - next year Mitsubishi will sell teir electrc car - it is cheaper, safer, and has a longer range than the EV-1 did, carries four times as many passengers and luggage and recharges in half the time and the battery packis cheaper ($19,000) and last about 5 years. It can travel 100 miles, which means a driving range of around 40 to 45 miles. Let's see you morons who think the EV-1 was a great car now go and buy a better and cheaper one. Now THAT would be poetic justice for all your lies.
paulk: the "e-Left" (new kudlow or rush L. label? nice...) doesn't control oil prices. peak oil and the realities of worldwide supply/demand will. i know you think drilling in ANWR and off the coasts is the complete solution, but i disagree. wrt wrecking the economy, as i have written many times to "conservative republicans" perhaps you can understand that bush has:
1) ran up the deficits to ungodly heights
2) devalued your US dollar by 50%
3) is in the process of nationalizing (socializing) the US housing mortgage market after his minions at treasury and the fed and the ratings agencies brought about the financial "crisis" on purpose
4) is pushing paulsen and bernanke to federalize the banking and financial systems.
its pre WW2 germany all over again (fascism), but you republican ideologues are so blinded by your love of bush, limbaugh, and kudlow that you cannot even see what is happening right before your eyes...even as the markets swooning every day should be reminding you..
if the article was as you say "nonsense", i assume that you support sending $700 billion to saudi arabia (the REAL country that attacked us on 9/11), russia, and iran. nice strategy there paul.
wrt nov 4, both parties suck, but i really look forward to 8 years of mccain. perhaps we can get oil to $400/barrel and the S&P500 to under 1000. inflation will go up though...that much is for sure...so will the number of oil wars we get it. wake up man, jeez.
theBike45: the EV1 was very unreliable when it had the Delco batteries in it (what a surprise). as soon as they put decent batteries in it, the car was *very* reliable according to the people who leased them and the mechanics that "tuned" them up. as far as the driving range of 40 miles (it was actually more like 70 miles) that suffices for 90% of the trips over 90% of people make every day. i stated above why Toyota and Honda bailed on the project - you can't fight the US government and its lack of iniative on the infrastructure required to support the car. meanwhile, it sounds like you are enjoying $4 gas, the US dollar getting hammered, inflation of over 10%, the stock markets sinking, and the bush crew taking over the entire american financial and banking systems as you currently read these words. nice. good strategy.
If GM could roll out EV1 as non-production model why would they roll out the AZTEK for production? that car is so ugly that I want to get paid driving it!
Seriously, if this blogger-group could replace our federal congress, we'd have a real fighting chance!
Criminal in the sense of doing stupid stuff that benefits no one, not even their own stupid selves.
For the cost of the Afgan and iraqi wars, plus 3 years "defense" budget, we could have produced and GIVEN AWAY not just 100M hybrids, but 100,000,000 EV1 PLUS the solar rooftop system needed to power them.
But it doesn't take that; just the ability to BUY an EV1 allows you to use the money you save NOT buying gasoline to pay for a rooftop solar system. Thus, solarizing America becomes self-funding, taking money away from being wasted by Big Oil. No wonder GM, Toyota and Chevron colluded to kill the NiMH battery used in the EV1, RAV4-EV, HondaEV and RangerEV.
WWW.SealBeach.org
As is true on many of these blog sites, they are available to anybody regardless of common sense or facts. Do you really think think that GM would spend hundreds of millions designing, developing, testing and manufacturing the car only to kill it?? Does that make any sense to anybody?? If there was enough demand for the car, do you really think a car company who had a huge technological advantage on the competition throw it away??
And GM bought all the electric railroads on the east cost to destroy them....wow! I hope that they don't let you out very often and when they do, you are well supervised.
Vehicle EPA Combined City/Hwy FE
Toyota Corolla 31
Chevy Aveo 27
Saturn Astra 27
Honda Accord (L4) 25
Honda Accord (V6) 22
Toyota Avalon 22
Chevy Impala 22
Chevy Malibu 25
Toyota Camry 25
Want to compare trucks? GM wins.
hey, i'm not saying the American consumer is blameless when it comes to the EV1. what i am saying is that there are times when government and industry "leaders" should take the time, expense, and trouble to educate and market to the public new and different technology for the good of the country and for the good of the economy. GM and the economy are now feeling the affects of their lack of effort in this respect.
What did the Vega cost? What did the Corvair cost? What did the Fiero cost? What did/does Saturn cost (never has turned a profit)? What did the Aztek cost? Etc. etc. etc.
Some of these project might have turned a little money in the end but nothing compared to what the same investments would have done for GM if they had spent the money on making existing products better with incremental improvements.
Instead they spent money on dozens of SUV and truck projects while ignoring the rest of their products. Now, when once again the price of gasoline leaps - GM, Ford and Chrysler are caught with their pants around their ankles.
Each time they reluctantly switch from their cash cows (no longer) to small vehicles. Each time they build products that barely make the grade. Meanwhile alot of us sit around and lament the fact that we would like to buy a GOOD product at a GOOD price with GOOD durability from an American company. I've owned imports with MUCH success since 1991. I WANT to buy an American product next time (40K miles more to go, to reach 200K miles) but WHY shoudl I reward them with my $20K for a marginal product? It only encourages them to build more marginal products and to continue rewarding the decision makers with excessive paychecks and bonuses. A Cobalt vs a Civic? Are you kidding - I'll take a Civic - THANKS!
I'm down to deciding whether I'll buy a Focus 5-door (once they are available again) or an Astra 3-door if I buy domestic.
I might just suck it up and buy a $40K Phoenix Motor Cars SUT. I can save $20K on gasoline over the lifetime of the product. I can prob get a tax-rebate of some sort (haven't looked). And I'm going to spend $20K for a vehicle anyhow. 100 mile range with typical creature comforts. My second vehicle never leaves the county anyhow and 100 miles will be PLENTY of range for my needs. Costs about 1/6th of the cost of gas right now and I expect gasoline to begin climbing again as the Chinese and Indians and all the other up-coming countries continue to buy cars around the world.
I do dislike the fact that the PMC is based on an imported chassis but oh well - GM could build them too.
I'm tired of the politicians running the country into the ground. Tired of the business people relying on the gov't to bail them out after taking advantage of common folks when these business people know what they are doing. I'm tired of plain old consumers whinning about the economy and rushing off to their favorite big box retailer to buy more stuff made in China and indirectly rushing jobs out of the USA. I'm tired of this rush to drill, tear, dig ever more resources out of Mother Earth to consume at ever faster speeds.
We've got the tools, we've got the know how - we need the initiative to change our country (and indirectly the world) for the better. The right choices are not always the capitalist's cheapest choices in the short term but they always turn out to be the cheapest choices in the long term.
Let's take a close look at the whole world and bring new ideas home and apply them. Let's re-evaluate how we spend our time and money and see if we really NEED to consume as much as we do in America. The sustainable future is not in consumption - its in conservation.
I'm not going to waste time looking for some non existent documentation about how GM bought all the electric rail systems. You made the accusation, you provide a link to some credible site (not some conspiracy theory web page) and I'll look.
Per your request, here are some truck mileage figures (from EPA data, of course they may be part of the conspiracy too):
Chevy Silverado 15/20
Toyota Tundra 15/19
Chevy Tahoe 14/19
Toyota Sequoia 14/17
Chevy Tahoe Hybrid 21/22
Toyota Sequoia Hybrid Whoops, they don't have one.
By the way, the 21 MPG city rating for the Tahoe hybrid is equal to a 4 cylinder Toyota Camry.
No question about it, the Prius is a good vehicle for fuel economy, plus Toyota has done a even greater job of marketing it. But believe it or not, not everybody wants one or is pleased with theirs.
Please note the entries from edmunds.com:
Acceleration Comments: Wow, this is a strikingly slow car. No real technique required to generate these numbers -- just mash the throttle in drive and go.
Braking Comments: Sub-limit brake response is awful -- awkward feel. Difficult to be smooth: it takes some time to adjust.
Handling Comments: Skid pad: Bizarre programming choices on the non-defeatable stability control system. On-again off-again brake application makes the chassis jump around like crazy during steady-state limit cornering. Slalom: Crummy steering feel offers almost no useful info to the driver in fast transitions or during steady-state conditions. But really, do Prius drivers care?
As I said, even Toyota is not perfect. They were in the process of building a new plant in San Antonio for the purpose of building more trucks until the gas prices increased, so they didn't see it coming either.
As far as there being tremendous demand for EV1's, as one of your posters said, there was only 800 of them produced. I don't think they were a bad car for the time, but there was simply no demand because of the economics of $1.25 per gallon gas.
I am only glad that some serious/smart people are hard at work developing the transportation of the future instead of writing about it in between fishing trips.
Well, you really had to go back in time for those! At least GM's mistakes are in the past. How maybe toasters on wheels have you seen (Toyota Scions, Honda Elements). Had GM produced those, the newspapers, i.e., NY Times would have been all over that!
Let's talk about the Saturn Aura (NAIAS car of the year), the Chevy Malibu (Motor Trend car of the year), the Buick Enclave (can't make enough at the manufacturing plant in Lansing, MI, even on 3 shifts), Chevy Cobalts (again, can't meet demand on 3 shifts at Lordstown, Ohio), Tahoe Hybrid (Green Car of the Year).
It's amazing that GM can do so well in all other parts of the world except the U.S. and Canada. I honestly don't understand that.
No car company has it ALL right, but we have to talk about factual information, not rumor and innuendo when evaluating products.
Normally, I enjoy your writings, but this one...(shaking head). If this represents a new trend, I can hardly wait to read your "expose" of the "Fish carburator". I'm sure you recall the story about the guy "Fish" who invented a "magical carb" that allowed vehicles to get 70 mpg in the 20's, 30's, or 40's (depending on which "urban myth" one was exposed to), only to have the patent bought from him for $1m. by "Big Oil/Big Auto Makers", who promptly destroyed all evidence of such a thing....
old trader
With only 800 electric cars on the road (and going only 45 miles or so), the roads would never be crowded and would last forever, pollution would go to zero, CARB could furlough all their employees for a huge tax saving, etc., etc., etc.
It is really too bad that GM didn't think of that way back when.
And, since GM would have offered only 800 of these cars, why, Toyota--with their mega-brain management, Honda and Nissan--mighty Japanese companies with really smart management--would have quickly joined suit and each produced their version of 800 electric cars. What a wonderful world we could have had!
You do fail to mention that even the Toyota Prius (I know, I know--it's only a hybrid) wasn't selling in volume until the US government took your tax money and gave a rebate to someone who bought one. How exaclty does that improve our balance of payments?
So, maybe, they are taking your advice and are starting to think ahead--no more UAW, no more pensions, no more lifetime healthcare, etc. They are probably counting on guys like you to fund these things through your increased taxes.
First the Wikipedia reference states "Convicted of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, GM was fined $5,000 and each executive was ordered to pay a fine of $1 for a conspiracy to force the streetcar systems to buy GM buses instead of other buses (but not for dismantling the streetcar systems, which were also being dismantled by non-NCL owned systems)." The history is that they were not convicted of dismantling the urban rail systems because buses were a large cost savings, a benefit to society. They were convicted of monopolistic practices because they used their own buses instead of Fords I guess. Besides, this all happened in the 1930's and 1940's. You need to come up with some new material.
The second reference is the world according to is a website run by a west coast organization called the "Modern Transit Society" whose purpose is to reintroduce train service to the San Francisco Bay including San Jose. This is your version of a credible source??
Now, don't twist my words...I am all for urban mass transit. I was assigned to live in Europe for three years during part of my career and saw how effective mass transit is in London, Paris, and other major European cities. Even Washington, DC and Toronto have excellent mass transit systems. I've been on the bullet trains in France and Japan as well and think they are well served, so I'm not against mass transit. I'll be surprised, though, if any U.S. governmental agency gets it's act together enough to pull it off other than in the nation's capital where the bureaucrats can use it. An example is the 20 year fiasco in Boston.
Anyway, this will be my last post on this site, it's like dueling with an unarmed man.
Bye-bye
P.S. to Fritz, you might want to re-check the Astra being a domestic car. GM didn't even rebadge it when they brought it over from Opel.
You all seem to believe killing the electric car was a wonderful thing and that GM's decisions on what models to build for the US market were correct. I disagree, and I think comparing GM's stock price to Toyota's or Honda's may support my position. Meanwhile, as GM tries to turnaround their tuna boat of a company, they are indeed going to lay off more US workers and import smaller more fuel-efficient models to the US from foreign countries. I am sure all you GM fans think this is wonderful. I think it stinks.
A couple years from now when oil breaches $200/barrel (and it will) and you are all paying $8/gallon for gasoline, I suspect maybe you'll have learned something...then again, probably not. It's a sad day when all the evidence points one way, but idiotic ideology pushed on you by "goldilocks" "economists" like larry kudlow, and label blabbermouth Rush Limbaugh convince Americans to vent their economic angst and falling standard of living at labels like "liberals" and "greens" etc. etc. while the decisions of your own favorite "leaders" are most responsible for the economic demise of the country you pretend to love and cherish.
Wall Street Journal 7/31/08 (today): GM laying off 15% (5,000) white collar jobs in North America.
While I certainly feel for those losing their jobs, and I definitely would like to see GM survive and be competitive (hopefully without taxpayer assistance), this news item does seem to support the positions and opinions in my article. The decision to deep-six the EV1 and focus instead on Hummers, Suburbans, Escalades, and similar vehicles for the US market has been disastrous for GM. Ditto Ford. Let's hope they both survive, grasp the realities of future worldwide oil supply/demand fundamentals, and make quality, fuel-efficient, and clean vehicles in the very near future. The technology exists, it's simply a matter of strategic management and efficient execution.
Mr. Fitz, how many EV-1s did you lease? Why is it news that GM and Ford are presently adjusting their model mix to customer demand?
Toyota is reducing the production of its Tundra, which has proven to be a collosal waste of money for them. One year late in getting to market because they couldn't build the plant properly. They had to fire the Japanese plant manager. Then, the Tundra comes out and is hit with three recalls in the first year of production, including blown engines. To make their modest sales goal, they had to offer $6,000 rebates to get people to buy it.
Toyota this year launched their new LARGER 2008 Sequoia which is based on the Tundra. It also has been a dud in sales. Sales of their Siena minivan are down 50%.
I'm looking forward to reading your insightful analysis on Toyota's product failures.
The EV1 was produced for 3 years, between 1996 and 1999. Production STOPPED all the way, having made roughly 2200 cars.
Now this author pretends to blame Bush and Cheney for the "bait and switch" that killed the success story of the EV1???
if GM thinks the right way.. how could they still sell crappy cars? they're focusing on the outside appearance but the technology inside is still in the 1940's. The only thing they would do is to hire a publicist and buy those auto awards (I was surprised by those awards and eventually lacked the confiidence on them ...tsk.tsk.. JD Powers..)
www.cnbc.com/id/259672...
GM posts $6.3 billion (with a "b") loss. Factor in the "charges" and the loss goes to $15.5 billion (!). The majority of the loss came in North America (what a surprise). GM long term debt was selling at $0.47 on the dollar this morning.
IXLR8: at the time the EV1 was made available, i was not living in california, and did not even know the car existed (again, covert marketing by GM to kill the car they never wanted to produce in the first place, and wouldn't have if not for the CARB mandate). I never said Toyota was infallible - they have to compete in the US market that has historically been dominated by GM+Ford. That said, they do have a quality car like the Prius, and many other quality small fuel-efficient cars. I have owned Toyotas since the 1970's. I was not happy with Toyota's move to the Tundra and the bigger Tacoma, and I wrote them and told them so, and that it would bite them on the butt when oil went up. That said, look at Toyota's financials and stock price versus either GM or Ford and then we can continue the debate, that is, if you still want to.
Juan: if you are happy with the Bush & Cheney energy plan, their focus on oil, our 70% addiction to foreign oil, our present economic state due to it, our falling US currency, and our tanking stock markets, hey, vote for mccain and perhaps we can get the S&P500 under 1000 (3 zeros, not 4...) after his 8 years. good strategy!
User: you're right, JD Powers used to be reputable, but now they have been bought out by big oil and big auto and Americans read that crap and buy it just like they do larry kudlow and rush limbaugh. GM's financial performance and stock price speak for itself and I am still amazed at this entire debate considering America's current economic state, but it just goes to show how important it is for the government to educate and prod industry and citizens in the right direction when they just don't get it.
it's like the CO2 analysis in this article and how "wrong" i was. CO2 is exactly that, 1 "C" and 2 "O". the oxygen comes from the air intake and combines with the carbon in the gasoline. that is why the CO2 output per gallon weighs more than the gallon of gasoline by itself. but, you can't tell these morons anything because they don't listen to science...they listen to heroin addict rush, who is making millions of dollars every year to push the bush doctrine on to them and they take the bait hook, line, and sinker. sad commentary on a country that used to be the world's leader in technology and science. now, we lead the world in false and hypocritical ideology. even as GM tanks, lays off people, and has suburbans and hummers sitting on their dealer lots that will never be sold, people still want to argue about it. amazing.
Unless these problems are fixed, there will never be a market that is large enough to serve profitably.
Electric cars have existed for over a century, but no one has ever solved these problems. That is a strong hint that these problems may well be insurmountable, or are not worth the effort.
GM created the EV1 lease program because of the California Air Resources Board's then-pending Zero Emissions Vehicle requirement. None of the automakers wanted the ZEV requirement, but had no choice but to comply in some modest way. The goal of the car makers was to show that the electric car was ultimately impractical and unachievable, so that the ZEV rules needed to be modified. When the car companies were able to get the rules changed, they canceled their ZEV cars and went back to business.
There is nothing wrong with electric cars per se. But there is something terribly wrong with using batteries as a fuel storage medium. There is no point in building large quantities of products that nobody would buy, and to sell or lease them at a significant loss. Getting a few hundred bucks per month for a product that costs six figures to produce made no sense at all, for anyone.
Unfortunately, GM has no apparent concern for the effect of its failure on America and/or its customers.
Yes, CO2 generation from gasoline is amazing, as you point out.
The atomic weight of C is 12;
The atomic weight of O is 16.
For the purposes of CO2 generation, gasoline is essentially Carbon, the Hydrogen has an atomic weight of 1 (H2 gas has a molecular weight of 2).
So for each gallon of gas, appx. 6 lbs., and assuming it's mostly Carbon, you generate 12+16+16 equivalent weight for each 12 equivalent weight of gasoline.
Thus, 12==>48, approximately; or 6 ==> 24. Because of H and other elements, we say it's between 19 and 24 lbs. of CO2 for each gallon of gas.
But time and again, oil company apologists argue with chemistry...and the facts.
Since the average car gets 20 mpg, that means:
FOR EACH MILE OF TRAVEL, THE AVERAGE CAR GENERATES 1 POUND OF CO2 GAS.
Assuming we burn about 400 million gallons of gas per DAY, we travel about 8B miles per day and release 8 BILLION POUNDS OF CO2 INTO THE AIR.
That's appx. 400 million TONS of CO2 released every DAY.
THAT ALSO MEANS THE AVERAGE CAR USES 1.5 GALLONS PER DAY AND TRAVELS 30 MILES PER DAY, ASSUMING 250 MILLION CARS.
By January, 2000, they had moved about 240 of them. GM still had the rest of the 465 "1999" model left, including both NiMH (140 miles range) and lead (100 to 110 miles range).
GM dribbled them out, a few per month, telling one would-be lessee that he could add his name to the list, but would never get a car since they would run out before they got to his name on the list.
GM finally leased the last of them in 2002; with the election of Bush in 2000, GM was freed from the force of law, and was able to destroy the program. It was, indeed, BUSH and CHENEY who enabled California and the EPA to kill the EV1.
The fact that they got away without signifiant legal entanglements is a measure of how successful their campaign was. Certainly, destroying the right-of-way alone was worth their investment; also true, the rail companies didn't do much to fight off the impact of auto and truck traffic, they over-financed their rail units, crippling them with debt (e.g., P.E. and other L.A. lines) and bought oil stocks.
The rail barons, such as Huntington, found more money in OIL.
From the Wikipedia reference:
"At one time, nearly every city in the U.S. with population over 10,000 had at least one streetcar company. 95% of all streetcar systems were at one time privately owned. The claim by transit advocates that "General Motors conspired to destroy the nation’s transit systems by replacing "efficient" streetcars with 'dirty' buses...." is not true and "has been debunked by numerous books and articles."[3]
"General Motors did purchase an interest in various transit companies, but its only goal was to sell its brand of buses to companies that were already converting from streetcars to buses. The simplest evidence of this is that General Motors never controlled more than a small fraction of the nation’s transit lines, and it controlled none after 1949."[4]
"Because electric motors are far simpler than internal combustion engines and steel-on-steel vehicles do not need the elaborate sprung suspensions of rubber-tired vehicles traveling on asphalt, streetcars themselves are actually much cheaper to maintain than buses and are far more durable. (1930s-vintage PCC streetcars still operated in Toronto, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and Cleveland well into the 1970s.) However, streetcar companies had to maintain their own rights-of-way, while bus operators traveled on publicly maintained roads. Additionally, maintenance of rails and catenary along a given route required that it be shut down, resulting in a total loss of revenue for the period and defection of riders to buses and private automobiles. During the Great Depression, streetcar companies had poor access to capital markets, making borrowing for costly refurbishment of rails and catenary nearly impossible. Because raising fares was difficult due to low demand and streetcar companies' public unpopularity (see below), switching to buses became that much more desirable."
"A far greater cost savings offered by buses was the result of the labor laws of the day. In many states, streetcar systems' status as regulated utilities entitled their employees to bargain collectively, long before the Wagner Act. As a result, during the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s, a streetcar system attempting to eliminate the position of conductor and move to one-man operation would usually find itself on the receiving end of a strike by its transit union.[citation needed] Transit unions, however, generally did not require two-man operation on buses. Buses thus offered the possibility of enormous cost savings on labor, prompting many transit operators to switch to electric trolley buses or combustion-powered buses."
"The economic populism prevalent during the Great Depression also had a serious negative impact on streetcar companies, in the form of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. Because streetcar companies were often the biggest single customers of electric utilities, they often were owned partially or wholly by the utilities themselves, which then supplied them with electricity at substantially discounted rates. The passage of the Public Utility Holding Company Act forced utilities to divest themselves of streetcar lines. The newly independent lines then had to purchase electricity at full price from their former parents, shaving their already thin margins that much more."
Take a deep breath and give it a rest.
Plus no smell, plus much cleaner. Figure out how many Prius' that's equivalent to.
A scaled down version of this 2 mode system is producing a 50% improvement in city fuel economy in a Tahoe (which is equal to a 4 cylinder Camry, 21mpg EPA rating).
"Because electric motors are far simpler than internal combustion engines and steel-on-steel vehicles do not need the elaborate sprung suspensions of rubber-tired vehicles traveling on asphalt, streetcars themselves are actually much cheaper to maintain than buses and are far more durable."
bingo!
This is your reference. Try and stay focused enough to read the whole thing and not take the information out of context. I'll put this out there just one more time. It amazing how people prefer to have their own view of history, even when presented facts that prove them wrong. Please try and read the remainder of the reference:
"However, streetcar companies had to maintain their own rights-of-way, while bus operators traveled on publicly maintained roads. Additionally, maintenance of rails and catenary along a given route required that it be shut down, resulting in a total loss of revenue for the period and defection of riders to buses and private automobiles. During the Great Depression, streetcar companies had poor access to capital markets, making borrowing for costly refurbishment of rails and catenary nearly impossible. Because raising fares was difficult due to low demand and streetcar companies' public unpopularity (see below), switching to buses became that much more desirable."
"A far greater cost savings offered by buses was the result of the labor laws of the day. In many states, streetcar systems' status as regulated utilities entitled their employees to bargain collectively, long before the Wagner Act. As a result, during the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s, a streetcar system attempting to eliminate the position of conductor and move to one-man operation would usually find itself on the receiving end of a strike by its transit union.[citation needed] Transit unions, however, generally did not require two-man operation on buses. Buses thus offered the possibility of enormous cost savings on labor, prompting many transit operators to switch to electric trolley buses or combustion-powered buses."
Careful Mr. Fitzman...you are losing credibility quickly.
"It's a sad day when all the evidence points one way, but idiotic ideology pushed on you by "goldilocks" "economists" like larry kudlow, and label blabbermouth Rush Limbaugh convince Americans to vent their economic angst and falling standard of living at labels like "liberals" and "greens" etc. etc. while the decisions of your own favorite "leaders" are most responsible for the economic demise of the country you pretend to love and cherish."
If the blog software permitted it, I would highlight "pretend".
This is called a debate and is the foundation of all good collective thought. It is counter productive to resort to personal attacks.
I read in your bio that you are a EE. Why not leave unemployment and join the people in the battery industry who are working feverishly to improve battery technology instead of fishing and blogging about it. The mechanical systems of the Volt are ready. The only concern the electronic controls and Lithium Ion battery technology. We need serious people working on this stuff.
It is interesting that everyone one is railing on the one company that has pioneered the electric car and is feverishly trying to produce a main stream PHEV. Why not criticize Ford, Chrysler, and many others who have not invested the time and money in this technology? I suppose that someone will say that GM is developing the Volt in order to have the opportunity to kill it again like the EV1.
And to "liveoilfree", I am 100% in agreement with you, the sooner that we can tell the middle east, Exxon Mobil, etc. that their world is changing, the better. There is no question that the electrification of the automobile is essential to our national security and environment. I think the only debate is when will technology advance to the point that it is affordable and practical to produce, and what do we do in the meantime. If I were President, I would appoint a group of scientists, without any agendas, to determine what are the best short term, middle term, and long term steps to get us to the point of oil independence. This would be based in fact, not conjecture based on partisan or personal whim.
Unfortunately, the government has shown by it's actions that they won't be part of the solution. The executive and legislative branches cannot get out of their own way and I don't see that happening after the next election either. Politicians seem to think their job is to argue amongst themselves instead of developing a comprehensive strategy. If this culture is to survive it will take the full effort of the business sector, similar to the mobilization of the car industry in WWII, to save this country...sad but true.
So I say we start supporting the people trying to find solutions instead of playing Monday morning quarterback and move our way of life forward.
1) doubled the fiscal debt in a mere 8 years
2) grown the size of the US government by 30%
3) presided over a 50% fall in the value of the US dollar
4) cut taxes to the rich while fighting 2 wars
5) caused an inflation rate which must be close to 8-10%
6) presided over equity markets that have done nothing in 8 years
7) presided over Fed takeover of Bear Stearns
8) nationalizing the nation's mortgage market
9) now has Bernanke and Paulsen federalizing the nation's banking and financial systems
10) oh, yeah, and oil went from $30-$150...
all these are fascists (not socialist) policies. yet, rush limbaugh uses gay marriage, labels like "greens" and "liberals" to convince the uneducated that Bush is "the man" and that Republicans are going to save you from "the government" at the same time Bush has the government doing the steps listed above. so, they DO pretent to cherish and love the country without looking at what is REALLY happening right before their eyes. it's easier to bash liberals or gays or greens or whoever....meanwhile, Bush robs the country blind.
you say not to make attacks personal, which i don't until i get attacked personally first, then i respond. ironic that you then go on to tell me how to live my own personal life.
i criticized GM because the article as about the EV1 and, no surprise, GM was the manufacturer. it was a CEO of GM that stated before Congress that "as GM goes, so goes the United States". GM was the biggest US car maker. so, those are the reasons why. unfortunately, there was a grain of truth in the CEO's statement, and we are definitely seeing that in the US economy today as well.
wind wasn't "ready" (yet Germany, Spain, the UK, and many parts of Scandinavia have found a way to implement it), solar wasn't "ready" (yet it can and is being deployed economically today), high speed trains weren't "ready" yet Japan, Europe, and many countries in Asia somehow made it happen. the point of the article is LEADERSHIP. the point of the articles is that the US imports 70% of our oil and therefore we should be LEADERS in alternatives. yet, we continue to allow the industrialists to call the shots for their own short-term profit motives, and US citizens follow along like sheep toward the cliff.
funny i am having this discussion with you as you then go on to tell "liveoilfree" that you'd like to see the US get off oil.
as far as monday morning quarterbacking goes, here is the energy policy i have developed and been pushing for the past 6 years, a campaign i started before oil breached $50/barrel:
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
if you want a detailed list of the iniatives i have taken to get the country's "leaders" to pay attention to the fact that worldwide oil supply/demand realties are the biggest threat to the US economy, national security, and our way of life, let me know - i'll send you a personal email detailing the entire effort.
oh, thanks alot for not making it "personal". you're as hypocritical as bush, limbaugh, kudlow and all the rest. take the high moral ground in word only, not in deed.
You have to forgive me, but I thought that this was a business website, that features authors who had an understanding of the workings of a market economy.
Obviously, the range is a problem. We know this because people are not buying electric cars and are not particularly asking for electric cars, particularly when offered at an unsubsidized price.
I can assure you that nobody would have leased an EV-1 if it was offered at a price that matched its cost of production. That shows that demand does not exist -- consumers are unwilling to pay the freight for these vehicles.
The Prius proves my point. It deals with the main turnoff of pure electric vehicles -- the EV's uncanny ability to leave their drivers stranded for lack of fuel or the time to refuel it. The Prius has hurdled the range and recharging limitations of the electric car and therefore has found a market. That makes perfect sense, and there is clearly a market for a part-electric vehicle that doesn't create risk for the driver.
The percentage of journeys that are taken within range of a battery is irrelevant. The point is that there is a high enough percentage of journeys that do exceed that battery range that it is enough to kill the market.
Most consumers don't want a vehicle that is bound to fail serving their needs for 10 or 20 or 30 or whatever percent of their lives, particularly when that vehicle is costly and consumes a lot of space. Very few car buyers want a car that offers the equivalent of Russian roulette (Do I get stranded on the shoulder today or not? Can I get to the grocery store or not?) There certainly aren't enough of these car buyers to constitute a viable market, given the capital intensive nature of car manufacturing.
We have a name for companies that refuse to accept consumer wants and market reality: Bankruptcy. We don't respond by congratulating them, but by shorting their stock.
I have read your energy policies and I agree with much of it. In fact, the only real thing I disagree with is your position on ethanol. Your energy policy is closely aligned with John McCain's. Fortunately, Barack Obama is starting to ignore the shrill voice of Nancy Pelosi and returning to some common sense approaches including off shore drilling and releasing light crude from the enormous surpluses that we have, shows the guy can learn.
If you look back at my posts, you will see that I have tried to do two things:
1. Defend GM against what I believe to be unjustified criticism
2. Defend GM against the perception that they are gas guzzling, poorly conceived and executed cars
I was not attacking your energy policy. I was challenging your perception on the facts.
The real problem is that everyone has their own ideas and the perpetual debating society called congress has proven itself to be impotent in acting (emphasis on acting) not only in energy policy, but health care, monetary policy, etc.
This whole topic began as a discussion of your article on the EV1. I like the way that the blog has gone because I would much rather debate today's issues, the past is not really important to me but I had to take issue with you and the Sony Corporation about "Who Killed the EV1". If you can stand another viewpoint please see web.archive.org/web/20...
I also couldn't allow revisionist history about a 60 year old anti trust case to go unchallenged.
Adios Mr. Fitz. You now have your blog back. There are many other blogs that are providing useful discussions on current issues that I will move to. Good luck to you and Seeking Alpha. I'll no longer screw up your opinions with facts.
"We have a name for companies that refuse to accept consumer wants and market reality: Bankruptcy. We don't respond by congratulating them, but by shorting their stock."
hopefully your pro-GM bias didn't keep you from shorting GM stock on its downward slide from $40 to $10 based mostly on the huge losses in North America. be sure to watch the special on "Saving GM" on CNBC tomorrow night.
miken: well, the facts are GM fought the electric car and lower emission vehicle iniatives in California with everything they had. their response was a move to put a priority on huge gas-guzzlers with higher (short-term) profit margins. despite the current financial crisis that GM finds itself in, and the effect that their moves have had on the US economy and reliance on imported oil, you disagree with me. that's fine, although i find it hard to believe the obvious is so hard for some to comprehend.
the main point of the article was to stress how important long-term **strategic policy** making by both US government and industry is to the health of the economy. you guys apparently disagree. again, that's fine. however, it's interesting to me that you guys want to talk about facts, but when i list the facts about what our dependence of oil has done to the US economy, i don't get a debate on this on a fact-by-fact basis. instead, i get personal attacks and label dropping name calling. when i respond to this, then i get attacked for making it personal when all i am doing is defending myself and giving it straight back!
so, let's agree to disagree and all tune it to watch "Saving GM" on CNBC wednesday night. i can't wait to see how my hard earned tax dollars will go to support the management of GM who continues to prosper mightily while the rank-and-file get laid off around the US. should be a real uplifting show. hopefully they will spend some film footage showing the dealer lots chock-full of GM hummers and SUV's. i can't believe you guys don't find this disturbing. i find it exasperating and sad.
as far as ethanol, i don't mind ethanol per se. what i mind is mandated quotas (again, by the supposedly "free market" conservative republicans). all this has done is cause huge dislocations in the beef, pork, and chicken markets causing many small guys to exit that business. wait until you see the prices of these products next year after the current glut (caused by the farmer's selling out) is over. it also keeps gasoline artificially low, prolonging our 70% addiction to foreign oil.
You must be kidding. I have no love for General Motors, one of the most ineptly run enterprises on this planet. GM is at best a short-term day trade, which is rotten on the fundamentals and has few prospects in its present form.
But in this case, GM made the appropriate business decision to walk away from the CARB-mandated, unwanted-by-consumers EV1. A similar decision that, you will note, was **also** made by Toyota and Honda, two highly successful car companies that do understand US consumers and how to make products that consumers want to buy.
All of the major car makers, whether they are successful and unsuccessful, have one thing in common -- they don't see a market for a mainstream electric vehicle. If they did, they would have made the effort sometime during the last century to make them in large quantities and to sell them, because profit is a strong motivator.
There are no profits to be made in these cars. Toyota's and Honda's choice to commit to hybrids shows that they understand this. Hybrids solve the very problems of range and refueling that you deny are problems -- obviously, Toyota and Honda also believed them to be problematic, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered investing effort into mass-producing these cars.
Now, Toyota sells more hybrids in just a few days than GM could lease EV1's for the entire length of the program. I think that you've got enough clues at this point to long hybrids, and short EV's. If you're looking for PE, it's all P and no E.
your point that profit is a strong motivator is exactly what i have been trying to tell you. one reason GM (and other makers) didnt want to make an electric vehicle was that they are CHEAPER to make and CHEAPER to service. you keep bringing up the cost of a vehicle when its total run rate was 200. what do you think the cost of a Hummer would be if they made 200? An Escalade? give me a break man. GM wanted to sell expensive higher-profit margined SUVs. period! due to their poor quality, they also want to see transmissions, drive trains, and other parts not to mention oil filters and air filters, etc. etc. so, profit margins were one of the points of the article: short-term profits versus long term strategic positioning. that was the point: the economic impact of GM's EV1 program. watch the CNBC special tonite "Saving GM" and perhaps they will discuss their history and decisions. i cannot believe i am having a debate on this obvious issue.
Sifting through the comments was amusing. One recurring theme was people proclaiming that it didn't make sense to produce electric cars with $1.25/gallon gasoline, which says more to me about the mentality of so many Americans than anything. Anyone not in a state of denial knew this was coming. Yet, people refuse to think long-term rather than short-term. It's why our country's falling apart and it's why Germany and Japan will surpass us economically in the next few decades (if we don't change our ways).
Sure, GM probably would've lost some money on the EV1 for awhile, but with continued development and improvement, they would probably be in a hell of a lot better state for the future right now. The stock price would be up despite the debt-load because at least you could argue they had a bright future. Also, unless they were producing millions of these things (unlikely), I doubt the losses would've been all that devastating to the bottom line.
Toyota and Honda have gotten where they are today by being willing to take chances. They may have abandoned their electric car programs, too, but that's beside the point. Both manufacturers have made some gambles on long-term trends and won big-time. Both companies are better poised for the future while the American Big 3 continue to suffer mightily. GM (and F and Chrysler, too) have been afraid to do anything different and unless they come up with a new plan in the next decade, they are all heading to bankruptcy.
I heard this somewhere maybe here.????
"As GM goes so does America".... or something like that.
The Big three use to be part of the GDP and I still think they reflect some sort of resemblance or tie to the GDP.
We do need to look head to Americas future.Gas will not last forever....True......B... I think Electric Battery problems and there solutions are about decade down the road.... so in the mean time. we need to drill and look at other energy sources.
There were those who wanted the EV1: EVERY ONE HAD A LESSEE.
The thing YOU forget is that GM took them back from willing buyers, and crushed them all.
It wasn't that GM had unwanted EV1!
It was that GM relentlessly hunted down and crushed (or gutted) them all, and then billed the lessees for "scratches" on the EV1 that they crushed!
On Jul 30 07:16 AM Miken wrote:
> When discussing why GM dropped the EV1, you forgot one issue, nobody
> wanted them with $1.25 fuel. GM knew that the cost to produce them
> was so high that no one would buy them, so they tried to lease them,
> still nobody wanted them. GM is not the government, they are responsible
> for financial performance and cannot continue to produce a vehicle
> that they can't sell or lease.
GM lies about needing Lithium batteries; Lutz is either ignorant, or just a liar about the batteries.
In reality, the EV1 had over 100 miles all-electric range using LEAD batteries (after Delco was superceded by PSB 1260 batteries). GM could release a version of the VOLT using lead batteries RIGHT NOW, instead, they are postponing until, they hope, the price of gas comes down and people forget about the EV.
GM could use NiMH: GM once owned the patent rights to NiMH!! But sold them to Chevron, which then sued Toyota to stop the Toyota RAV4-EV being sold to the publc. Instead of being crushed, the Toyota RAV4-EV are still running, over 100 miles range using NiMH.
So why are GM and Standard Oil (Chevron) lying? You figure it out, it's obvious. The money is in OIL, and GM is just the supplier of the "needle", the big money is made by Chevron selling its "drug".
Guess they were right, GM told CARB if you force us to make the EV1, we'll go bankrupt. CARB forced them to make the EV1, and they went bankrupt.
Stupid GM sockpuppets probably think that's a serious statement, instead of a commentary on their stupidity.